Judge savagely ridicules Orly Taitz in Jan 3rd hearing.

For Immediate Release Jan 3, 2013: Federal Judge England's "non-stop ridicule" of Attorney Orly Taitz offended Courtroom Visitors!

There is only one term that can describe Sacramento’s Chief Federal Judge Morrison C. England Jr. And that term is a Cesspool bottom-feeder. I have nothing but contempt for this unprofessional pig.

I sat at the Plaintiff’s table with Orly Taitz and I was filled with outrage at the way this scum-bag was treating my attorney. And, of course, while he was ridiculing my attorney, he was likewise ridiculing me.

At the beginning, anyone with at least two brain cells in their head, could tell that England was bent on making the hearing a mockery of justice and had no impartiality in the matter before him...NONE! He declared that OBAMA WAS THE PRESIDENT AND THE MATTER HAD ALREADY BEEN CERTIFIED BY THE HAWAIIAN HEALTH DIRECTOR. Orly tried to tell him that this so-called "birth certificate" had been proven to be a forgery and Sheriff Apario had declared the document to be fraudulent, but England did not want any facts to be presented to him…he already had his mind made up.

He chided Orly for being sanctioned by other courts throughout the United States. He acted as if all of Orly's cases had been given a fair hearing and the cases were lost by poor evidence and poor witnesses. Orly told the scumbag judge that not a single judge in the United States had given her an honest chance for DISCOVERY and a fair hearing.

But at least it was easy to tell when England was lying! Whenever his lips moved and words came out of his mouth it was ANOTHER LIE! Not a single word he said had the slightest appearance of truth. For instance, he rebuked Orly for not giving the Federal government “proper service.” But Orly was slapped down when she attempted to testify that a private process service had provided the service (for $500). He did not want to hear any of our challenges concerning the illegal alien, SOETORO. It was his firm desire to ignore all the crimes concerning Soetoro’s bogus and felonious birth certificate, selective service registration and bogus social security number(s). England wanted to shut his eyes to these reports of crimes and refused hear any of Orly’s charges of these felonies being committed by the illegal alien scum-bag in the White House. England happily became a conspirator of the crimes of Soetoro and likewise became a collaborator in the felonys of the law-breaker-in-chief.

England offended me every time words came out of his lying mouth, and I continuously sat shaking my head directly at him showing him I did not agree with him. I was hoping he would address me so I could give him a piece of my mind but he was too much of a chicken poop to confront me as a plaintiff. The Federal Marshals were more concerned at my silent angry body-language as I glared at this ridiculing bozo on the bench.

The Sacramento Bee gave a somewhat accurate hearsay version of the court proceedings. You can read their leftist version at: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/03/5091099/orly-taitzs-obama-birther-claims.html#storylink=cpy

The Bee version got it somewhat correct and that is concerning the dissatisfaction of most of the packed crowd in the courtroom. They report, "The reaction from courtroom watchers was unmistakable. "Mockery," one man shouted as he stormed out, followed by another who was holding his nose.

The Federal Marshals were visibly concerned and scared of a possible riot of the crowd and quickly ordered all 70-80 of us out of the courtroom (after the cesspool judge denied the TRO.) So we all retired out into the hallway and then while we were clapping for Orly for the fantastic job she did in the slug fest with this corrupt Federal Judge, the Marshals ordered us out of the building. They said we were to remove ourselves to the outside of the building - - implying that we were not welcome in their FEDERAL COURT BUILDING.

I wonder what career promises were made to England in exchange for the circus he provided today? I am sure England’s bank account will soon show an increase and Soetoro (aka BHO) will forever be in his debt.

Plaintiff: Edward C. Noonan Founder - National Committee Chairman American Resistance Party

http://www.lodinews.com/ap/state/article_49be0d7e-560a-11e2-914f-0017a4aa4fba.html

http://m.utsandiego.com/news/2013/jan/03/judge-rejects-birther-challenge-to-electoral-count/

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2013/jan/03/judge-rejects-birther-challenge-to-electoral/?print=1

"Section 301 is naturalization law."

It is in fact an Immigration and Nationality Act. =========================================================== Sec. 301 (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; =========================================================== Sect. 301 (a) (1) merely repeats the 14th Amendment. Senators Rubio, Santorum and Governor Jindal fall within that section. All are NBCs.

Now I realize that you believe that there are three types of citizens (natural born, naturalized and 14th Amendment) but that has never been recognized by legal authorities either before or after the 14th was enacted.

In 1862 in the "Opinion of Attorney General Bates on citizenship", AG Bates writes, "We have natural born citizens, (Constitution, article 2, § 5,) not made by law or otherwise, but born. And this class is the large majority; in fact, the mass of our citizens; for all others are exceptions, specially provided for by law. As they became citizens in the natural way, by birth, so they remain citizens during their natural lives, unless, by their own voluntary act, they expatriate themselves and become citizens or subjects of another nation. ...The Constitution itself does not make the citizens, (it is, in fact,made by them.) It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural, home-born and provides for the naturalization of such of them as were alien,foreign-born making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former."

This exact passage was then referenced in 1868 by George Washington Paschal in "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES DEFINED AND CAREFULLY ANNOTATED." He cited it in his discussion of the Article 2 Section 5 of the Constitution.

This exact passage from AG Bates was then cited by Alexander Porter Morse in his 1888 "Treatise on Citizenship".

In Morse's treatise, he also says, "In the law of nations, ”citizen” is a term applicable to every member of the civil society, every individual who belongs to the nation."

"This character is acquired in various ways, according to the laws of each state. In many states birth is sufficient to confer it; so that the child of an alien is a citizen from the fact of having been born within the territorial limits and the jurisdiction.2"

Footnote 2 says: ”It is so in England and in the United States [but the births must be " within the jurisdiction"'].”

This is what SoS Kobach was saying in the Kansas ballet challenge only two types of citizens - natural born and naturalized.

“why was a birth provision added to the 14th amendment?? Why would it even be needed??”

To overturn the Dred Scott decision. Just as the 19th Amendment was added to overturn Minor v. Happersett

“As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption. It is declaratory in form, and enabling and extending in effect. Its main purpose doubtless was, as has been often recognized by this court, to establish the citizenship of free negroes, which had been denied in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, and to put it beyond doubt that all blacks, as well as whites, born or naturalized within the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States.” Justice Gray, Wong Kim Ark

"Why did the Minor decision say there were doubts about the citizenship of those persons born in the country without reference to the citizenship of the parents??"

Even going back to the Founding era, there was not unanimity of thought on birthright citizenship. During the Dr. David Ramsay v. William L. Smith trial in the House of Representatives, James Madison argued for birthright citizenship, while Representative Jackson of Georgia argued against it.

"And why did the Wong Kim Ark decision say that natural-born citizens were defined outside of the Constitution but declare that the separate term of "citizenship by birth" was defined strictly by the 14th amendment??"

Not sure what you mean by this. Justice Gray says that "citizenship by birth" goes back to the founding and earlier.

“In Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor (1833), 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America”

And later,

“It thus clearly appears that, during the half century intervening between 1802 and 1855, there was no legislation whatever for the citizenship of children born abroad… Here is nothing to countenance the theory that a general rule of citizenship by blood or descent has displaced in this country the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within its sovereignty.” Justice Gray, Wong Kim Ark

And he finishes with a statement that the 14th Amendment affirms the what existed before it was passed.

"The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens"

To overturn the Dred Scott decision. Just as the 19th Amendment was added to overturn Minor v. Happersett

IOW, because it wasn't universally accepted what you want NBC to mean PRIOR to the passage of the 14th amendment. Thanks for helping to prove this point.

"As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption."

Right, and in regards to defining NBC, nobody is saying the 14th amendments imposes "new restrictions" nor is anyone saying it "prevents any person from becoming citizens by .. birth" before the adoption of the 14th amendment. We still have Minor saying that there were TWO classes of persons who were considered citizens at birth. One was without doubt and were categorized exclusively as natural-born citizens. The other class had doubts.

Its main purpose doubtless was, as has been often recognized by this court, to establish the citizenship of free negroes, which had been denied in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, and to put it beyond doubt that all blacks, as well as whites, born or naturalized within the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States.” Justice Gray, Wong Kim Ark

Thanks Justice Gray for acknowledging the doubts brought up by the Minor decision and these doubts did NOT just apply to blacks.

Even going back to the Founding era, there was not unanimity of thought on birthright citizenship. During the Dr. David Ramsay v. William L. Smith trial in the House of Representatives, James Madison argued for birthright citizenship, while Representative Jackson of Georgia argued against it.

Yes ... because birthright naturally flows through the father. This is why natural-born citizen is defined as children born to parents who are citizens.

Not sure what you mean by this. Justice Gray says that "citizenship by birth" goes back to the founding and earlier.

Yes, it goes back further in English common law. As a general principle of U.S. law, not so much. As you've just noted, there was a lot of disagreement over the concept. But to show what I was talking about, here's a direct quote to help you understand better:

But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.

Do you see it ... "defined IN the Constitution" and then Gray prefaces this type of birth as "subject to the jurisdcition thereof" ... Notice how this is much different than how he described natural-born citizenship:

In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens."

Gray cites Waite in the Minor decision. The Minor court construed the 14th amendment and said the Constitution does not say who shall be natural-born citizens. The 14th amendment is IN the Constitution, thus the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens.

“In Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor (1833), 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America”

Right, the law of ENGLAND was the law of the ENGLISH COLONIES. This doesn't say it's U.S. law. That doesn't happen until the 14th amendment is passed, at least according to Gray.

“It thus clearly appears that, during the half century intervening between 1802 and 1855, there was no legislation whatever for the citizenship of children born abroad… Here is nothing to countenance the theory that a general rule of citizenship by blood or descent has displaced in this country the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within its sovereignty.” Justice Gray, Wong Kim Ark

This sounds good, but it doesn't really mean too much. All Gray is saying that there's nothing in the law to prevent or counter the effect of the passage of the 14th amendment which then establishes the rule as U.S. law. It doesn't mean that he thinks citizenship by birth was the universal law in the U.S. prior to the 14th amendment. He's just saying there was no legislation to contradict the 14th amendment being passed. If the rule was universal, we wouldn't have needed the 14th amendment. "(A)ll blacks, as well as whites" would have been recognized as citizens already.

"The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens"

Thanks again. This quote really helps drive home why Obama is NOT a natural-born citizen and may not even be a citizen. The "fundamental rule," as Gray calls it, actually isn't that fundamental. It only goes back a couple hundred years prior to the founding of the U.S. It sounds good, but it's melodrama. Second, note the clause ... "includng all children here born of resident aliens." Why didn't Gray just including all persons born within the jurisdiction?? He stresses birth to resident aliens. Obama was NOT born to resident aliens. His father was NOT admitted into this country with resident alien status. His mother's citizenship status is irrelevant under the 14th amendment because the 14th amendment doesn't consider citizenship status of parents. Gray applied it to those aliens who had resident status. He gives several quotes to show that "subject to the jurisdiciton" means aliens who reside in the U.S.

Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the Emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here, and are " subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States.

- - -

It necessarily follows that persons born in China, subjects of the Emperor of China but domiciled in the United States, having been adjudged, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins to be within the jurisdiction of the State within the meaning of the concluding sentence, must be held to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the first sentence of this section of the Constitution

- - -

In a very recent case, the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that a person born in this country of Scotch parents who were domiciled but had not been naturalized here was "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment,

Interestingly, Gray cites this passage from the New Jersey Supreme Court:

The colored people were no more subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by reason of their birth here, than were the white children born in this country of parents who were not citizens. The same rule must be applied to both races, and unless the general rule, that, when the parents are domiciled here, birth establishes the right to citizenship, is accepted, the Fourteenth Amendment has failed to accomplish its purpose, and the colored people are not citizens.

This court says the the general rule is that "when the parents are DOMICILED here," birth establishes the right to citizenship under the 14th amendment. The white people who were born here to parents who weren't citizens were NOT subject to the jurisdiction, according to this ruling. This destroys the idea that birth within the jurisdiction is sufficient to make someone a natural-born citizen. This was the rule that applied to white people PRIOR to the 14th amendment it says, which should then be applied to black people AFTER the 14th amendment was passed. They had to be born to either citizen parents OR resident aliens, but as we know thanks to Minor, only ONE of these is characterized as natural-born citizens ... and the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens.

“Yes, it goes back further in English common law. As a general principle of U.S. law, not so much.”

Not according to Justice Gray.

“The same rule [English Common Law] was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.” Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark

“He stresses birth to resident aliens.”

That would have been the only argument that might have any chance in court. The argument that Justice Gray doesn’t say that WKA is “natural born” fails because almost all legal scholars believe that someone born in the US is “natural born”. Even the US governnment in its appellant brief acknowledged that fact.

“The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated: Is a person born within the United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen” Appellant Brief Wong Kim Ark,

But what was the District Courts ruling?

“From the law as announced and the facts as stipulated, I am of opinion that Wong Kim Ark is a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the citizenship clause of the fourteenth amendment. He has not forfeited his right to return to this country. His detention, therefore, is illegal. He should be discharged, and it is so ordered.”District Judge Morrow, Northern District of California, Wong Kim Ark.

District Judge Morrow never called WKA a natural born citizen. The US Government assumed he was by being declared a citizen by birth in the US.

Then there is Chief Justice Fuller’s dissent. He believed the majority opinion while denying natural born citizenship to “children of our citizens, born abroad” granted it to “everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances”.

“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.” Chief Justice Fuller, Dissenting Opinion in Wong Kim Ark

I stopped watching the BCS game after the first quarter how abou you?

Not according to Justice Gray.

“The same rule [English Common Law] was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.” Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark

Yes, persons born in the United States and loyal to the crown at the time of the DoI and The Constitution were considered English subjects. That's what was being described in U.S. v Rhodes ruling cited by Gray: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens." This refers to people born on U.S. soil who were considered British subjects, thanks to English common law and the Treaty of 1783. Notice Gray doesn't say the English common law was adopted AS U.S. law. Again, if it was the law in effect, there was NO NEED for the birth clause in the 14th amendment.

That would have been the only argument that might have any chance in court. The argument that Justice Gray doesn’t say that WKA is “natural born” fails because almost all legal scholars believe that someone born in the US is “natural born”. Even the US governnment in its appellant brief acknowledged that fact.

No it didn't. It said the opposite. It was aruging against a dicta comment in a ruling that was cited by a lower court. There's nothing in the Wong Kim Ark decision that repeats this claim from the lower court.

District Judge Morrow never called WKA a natural born citizen. The US Government assumed he was by being declared a citizen by birth in the US.

No, they were responding to a citation of Look Tin Sing, a lower court that quoted the Lynch v. Clarke interpretation of NBC. Now, I don't believe Look Tin Sing formally declared its plaintiff to be a natural-born citizen, but the dicta it cited was used by Ark's lawyer in the district court case. The district court failed to address the Lynch definition, but didn't rely on it to make Ark a citizen. The government's counsel brought it up to help bolster its argument against Ark in its appeal to the Supreme Court. Gray ignored it, but made sure to point out the unanimous definition of NBC from Minor -- and THEN came up with his own class of "citizenship by birth" as defined exclusively by the 14th amendment in application to the children of resident aliens born in the country. Gray brings up the Look Tin Sing case, but certainly does not cite it to define NBC. And he certainly does not give a citation on natural-born citizen from the lower court Ark ruling either. Nor does he cite Lynch for a definition of NBC. Now certainly, that would have been a much more expedient and compelling way to declare Ark to be a citizen, but Gray knew it was weak and he knew it was contradicted by a UNANIMOUS Supreme Court decision in Minor v. Happersett.

Then there is Chief Justice Fuller’s dissent. He believed the majority opinion while denying natural born citizenship to “children of our citizens, born abroad” granted it to “everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances”.

Sorry, but this wrong. Fuller is responding to the government's appeal from the lower court ruling. He's NOT saying ANYTHING about the majority's decision at this point because there's nothing in the majority opinion that says what you quoted from the dissent. And for further proof, the majority says absolutely NOTHING about the children born abroad being natural-born citizens or not. Fuller goes on in his dissent and gives the Law of Nation's definition of natural-born citizen.

Before the Revolution, the view of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel:

The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.

Now, Fuller doesn't bring this up definition to argue against Ark being a citizen because it turns out that Fuller agreed with the majority that the children of resident aliens born in the country would be citizens. Why would he argue that NBC is defined by law of nations but accept a different way of defining citizenship at birth per the 14th amendment if he felt the majority's opinion was incorrectly making Ark a natural-born citizen?? Answer: He wasn't. In reality, he disagreed only that the 14th amendment could override the treaty with China that prohibited its subjects (and their children) from becoming citizens of the United States. In the quote below, I highlight where Fuller AGREES with how the majority defined 14th amendment citizenship by birth.

I think it follows that the children of Chinese born in this country do not, ipso facto, become citizens of the United States unless the Fourteenth Amendment overrides both treaty and statute.

- - -

In other words, the Fourteenth Amendment does not exclude from citizenship by birth children born in the United States of parents permanently located therein, and who might themselves become citizens; nor, on the other hand, does it arbitrarily make citizens of children born in the United States of parents who, according to the will of their native government and of this Government, are and must remain aliens.

“Sorry, but this wrong. Fuller is responding to the government’s appeal from the lower court ruling. He’s NOT saying ANYTHING about the majority’s decision at this point because there’s nothing in the majority opinion that says what you quoted from the dissent.”

The appellants do not contended that child of citizens born outside the jurisdiction of the United States were not citizens at birth, but Justice Gray did.

“A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.”

Chief Justice Fuller’s statement could only be directed at the majority opinion.

“Nor does he [Justice Gray] cite Lynch for a definition of NBC.”

Except he does.

“Even those authorities in this country, which have gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents. 2 Kent Com. 39, 50, 53, 258 note; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf.Ch. 583, 659; Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356, 371.” Justice Gray, Won Kim Ark

The appellants do not contended that child of citizens born outside the jurisdiction of the United States were not citizens at birth, but Justice Gray did.

This quote doesn't say the children born out of the jurisdiction were not citizens at birth. It says they become citizens "by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens." Fuller cites several of the acts of Congress that declared such persons to be citizens if born abroad. What Fuller is arguing is that the majority opinion is now requiring children born abroad to be naturalized IN THE UNITED STATES upon reaching their majority instead of being naturalized at birth under the law. It's not the same argument. And it's a conclusion that isn't supported by what you just quoted from Gray nor anywhere else in the majority opinion.

“Nor does he [Justice Gray] cite Lynch for a definition of NBC.”

Except he does.

“Even those authorities in this country, which have gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents. 2 Kent Com. 39, 50, 53, 258 note; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf.Ch. 583, 659; Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356, 371.” Justice Gray, Won Kim Ark

You need to read this more closely. This doesn't say anything about natural-born citizenship. And Gray is calling these case outliers ... they have gone "the farthest" ... if this was his precedent or legal justification from making Wong Kim Ark a citizen, the ruling should have stopped at this point. Instead, this he continues writing another 30 pages worth of opinion trying to build a sound legal reason to overrule the treaty that the dissent said should have been controlling.

Also, you need to read the dissent more closely. It doesn't disagree with Gray's basic premise of persons being born in the U.S. being citizens as long as their parents had permanent residence and domicil. The difference is that Fuller makes a clearer declaration than the majority that children who are born to temporary alien residents (such as Obama) are NOT citizens.

In his work on Conflict of Laws, § 48, Mr. Justice Story, treating the subject as one of public law, said:

Persons who are born in a country are generally deemed to be citizens of that country. A reasonable qualification of the rule would seem to be that it should not apply to the children of parents who were in itinere in the country, or who were abiding there for temporary purposes, as for health or curiosity, or occasional business. It would be difficult, however, to assert that, in the present state of public law, such a qualification is universally established.

Undoubtedly all persons born in a country are presumptively citizens thereof, but the presumption is not irrebuttable.

- - -

If a stranger or traveler passing through, or temporarily residing in, this country, who has not himself been naturalized and who claims to owe no allegiance to our Government, has a child born here which goes out of the country [p719] with its father, such child is not a citizen of the United States, because it was not subject to its jurisdiction.

- - -

These considerations lead to the conclusion that the rule in respect of citizenship of the United States prior to the Fourteenth Amendment differed from the English common law rule in vital particulars, and, among others, in that it did not recognize allegiance as indelible, and in that it did recognize an essential difference between birth during temporary, and birth during permanent, residence. If children born in the United States were deemed presumptively and generally citizens, this was not so when they were born of aliens whose residence was merely temporary, either in fact or in point of law.

The bottom line is that there is NOTHING in the Wong Kim Ark decision that makes Obama a natural-born citizen, but that's providing he could legally prove he was born in the U.S.

“This quote doesn’t say the children born out of the jurisdiction were not citizens at birth.”

Here is the full quote:

“Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case [p703] of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.”

It says that children born in the US and under the jurisdiction of the US “becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” But a person “born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized” and that naturalization can only occur by “treaty” or “by authority of Congress”. One of those examples of Congrssional authority is to conferr “citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens”.

Congress can pass an act to declare children born outside the US to citizen parents to be “citizens” but that is in Justice Gray’s opinion a form of naturalization.

CJ Fuller is objecting to the contention that child of aliens can be President but children of citizens cannot.

“This doesn’t say anything about natural-born citizenship.”

It says they are native born citizens. And we know that native born can be President (Luria v. United States).

“And Gray is calling these case outliers”

Here is the entire quote:

“So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. Even those authorities in this country, which have gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents.” (citations omitted)

“[F]arthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law” the statutes he is referring to are those that confer “citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens”.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.